GMO-Science Takes a Blow as Studies Are Retracted

GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM (Photo credit: live w mcs)

By Dr. Mercola

The pesticide producers are one of the most powerful industries on the planet, the influence they possess is enormous. You have probably heard that an Elsevier journal has retracted the Seralini study which showed evidence of harm to rats fed a GMO diet, despite admitting they found no fraud or errors in the study.

This journal had also just recently appointed an ex-Monsanto employee as an editor - one could only guess the value of this strategy for the pesticide industry. Expect Seralini to sue as this story develops, as it appears he has a very strong case.

Alas, the scientific ground on which the genetic engineering of plants is built may now be shakier than ever, thanks to GMO promoting scientists like Dr. Pamela Ronald.  A recent article in Independent Science News1 questions whether she'll be able to salvage her career, as two of her scientific papers (published in 2009 and 2011 respectively) were recently retracted.

With the loss of her credibility, and the domino effect these retractions are likely to cause within the scientific field, the entire chemical technology industry stands to suffer a great blow to its scientific integrity.

"Her media persona... is to take no prisoners," Jonathan Latham, PhD writes.2 "After New York Times chief food writer Mark Bittman advocated GMO labeling, she called him 'a scourge on science' who 'couches his nutty views in reasonable-sounding verbiage.' His opinions were "almost fact- and science-free" continued Ronald.

In 2011 she claimed in an interview with the US Ambassador to New Zealand: 'After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of two billion acres planted, GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to human health or the environment.'"

She may have to turn down her criticism a notch, considering the fact that not one but two of her own studies were found to contain sizeable scientific errors, rendering her findings null and void. Questions have also been raised about a third study published in 2011, according to the featured article.

Public Face of GMOs Loses Scientific Credibility

Ronald's research group claimed to have identified a molecule used by rice plants to detect pathogenic rice blight, as well as a quorum sensing molecule (meaning a molecule that can coordinate gene expression according to the density of the local population).

These two studies, both of which are now retracted,3, 4 formed the basis of her research program at the University of California in Davis, which is investigating how rice plants detect certain pathogenic bacteria.

Ronald blamed the erroneous work by long gone lab members from Korea and Thailand, referring to the errors as a "mix-up." She didn't name her bungling colleagues, however. And while media coverage applauded Ronald for "doing the right thing" by retracting the studies, the featured article5 questions whether she really deserves such accolades:

"[S]cientific doubts had been raised about Ronald-authored publications at least as far back as August 2012... German researchers had been unable to repeat Ronald's discoveries... and they suggested as a likely reason that her samples were contaminated.

Furthermore, the German paper also asserted that, for a theoretical reason, her group's claims were inherently unlikely. In conclusion, the German group wrote: 'While inadvertent contamination is a possible explanation, we cannot finally explain the obvious discrepancies to the results...'

Pamela Ronald, however, did not concede any of the points raised by the German researchers and did not retract the Danna et al 2011 paper. Instead, she published a rebuttal. 

The subsequent retractions, beginning in January 2013, however, confirm that in fact very sizable scientific errors were being made in the Ronald laboratory. But more importantly for the 'Kudos to Pam' story, it was not Pamela Ronald who initiated public discussion of the credibility of her research.

... Ronald's footnotes [in the explanation that accompanied the retraction of her second article6 admit two mislabelings, along with failures to establish and use replicable experimental conditions, and also minimally two failed complementation tests. Each mistake appears to have been compounded by a systemic failure to use basic experimental controls. 

Thus, leading up to the retractions were an assortment of practical errors, specific departures from standard scientific best practice, and lapses of judgment in failing to adequately question her labs' unusual (and therefore newsworthy) results."

The Snowball Effect of Retracted Studies

According to data from Thomson Reuters,7 the numbers of scientific retractions have climbed more than 15-fold since 2001. What many don't realize is that even a small number of retracted studies can wreak absolute havoc with the science-based paradigm. Other scientists who have based their research on the results from studies that, for whatever reason, end up being retracted, are now perpetuating flawed science as well. In one example, two retracted medical studies led to the retraction of another 17.

In this case, the first of Dr. Ronald's retracted studies has been cited eight times.8The second? 113 times.9 That sounds like an awfully large cleanup job in a field that's already heavily criticized for its preponderance of "lousy science," to use the words of award-winning geneticist Dr. David Suzuki.

The Problem with GMO Plant Science

It's important to realize that genetically engineered plants and animals are created using horizontal gene transfer (also called horizontal inheritance). This is in stark contrast to vertical gene transfer, which is the mechanism in natural reproduction. Vertical gene transfer, or vertical inheritance, is the transmission of genes from the parent generation to offspring via sexual or asexual reproduction, i.e., breeding a male and female from one species.

Horizontal gene transfer, on the other hand, involves injecting a gene from one species into a completely different species, which yields unexpected and often unpredictable results. Proponents of genetically engineered crops assume they can apply the principles of vertical inheritance to horizontal inheritance, but according to Dr. David Suzuki, this assumption is flawed in just about every possible way and is "just lousy science."

Genes don't function in a vacuum — they act in the context of the entire genome. Whole sets of genes are turned on and off in order to arrive at a particular organism, and the entire orchestration is an activated genome. It's a dangerous mistake to assume a gene's traits are expressed properly, regardless of where they're inserted. The safety of genetically modified food is based only on a hypothesis, and this hypothesis is already being proven wrong.

The kind of horizontal gene transfer that is currently used to create new crop seeds tends to produce highly inflammatory foreign proteins. As one would expect, were there a connection, inflammation-based chronic diseases have indeed increased right alongside with the proliferation of GMO foods in the US. Clearly, Dr. Ronald never bothered to look at such data, and her declaration that "GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to human health or the environment"10 is as lacking in scientific support as her retracted research.

Results from Animal-Feeding Studies Correlate with Human Disease Patterns

According to Jeffrey Smith, who is one of the leaders in educating people about the concerns and dangers of GMOs, there are definitive correlations between the results from animal-feeding studies and the patterns of human disease we're now seeing. For example, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has done a number of animal-feeding studies on GMOs and specifically enumerated the particular categories of diseases and disorders found in these controlled environments. These include:

Gastrointestinal problems	Immune problems	Reproductive problems
Organ damage	Dysfunction and dysregulation of cholesterol	Dysfunction and dysregulation of insulin

"You look at the three different corresponding factors: (1) what humans are getting better from, (2) what livestock is getting better from, (3) what afflictions are afflicting the lab animals fed with GMOs, and then you look at what diseases are really taking off in the United States – they're the same categories," Smith says.

For example, kidney problems have been demonstrated in 19 different animal-feeding studies, and kidney diseases are on the rise in the US. Could there be a connection? Smith and I both believe this to be the case. According to Smith:

"We heard from two people at a meeting in Arizona, someone whose husband was nearly on dialysis and someone else who had three kidney transplants – both situations reversed when they changed their diet. You see things like the animal-feeding study out of Russia where the babies were a lot smaller after being fed GE soy, and you see the incidence of low-birth-weight babies is going up in the United States... Deaths from senile dementia moved along at a certain pace, and then when GMOs or Roundup were introduced, it shot up... So, you see these correlations between these four things now: (1) the animal-feeding studies, (2) people getting better [when removing GMO], (3) livestock getting better [when removing GMO], and (4) changes in the disease rates."

GMO Foods Have Never Been Proven Safe for Long-Term Consumption

In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium on genetically modified foods, and said that long-term independent studies must be conducted, stating: "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food, including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. …There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…"

Despite this sound warning, genetically engineered foods continue to be added to the US food supply with no warning to the Americans buying and eating this food. Genetic manipulation of crops, and more recently food animals, is a dangerous game that has repeatedly revealed that assumptions about how genetic alterations work and the effects they have on animals and humans who consume such foods are deeply flawed and incomplete. Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant claims genetically engineered crops are "the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen." What he doesn't tell you is that:

1. Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When industry funds the research, it's virtually guaranteed to be positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to replicate and thus verify results.
2. The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90 days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In the world's first independently funded lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and cancer.
3. Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence, independent research is extremely difficult to conduct.
4. There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the genetically engineered item in question has been approved, not a single country on Earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects.

Vote with Your Pocketbook, Every Day

Remember, the food companies on the left of this graphic spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two labeling campaigns—in California and Washington State—to prevent you from knowing what's in your food. You can even the score by switching to the brands on the right; all of whom stood behind the I-522 Right to Know campaign. Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference.

As always, I encourage you to continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and to share what you've learned with family and friends. Remember, unless a food is certified organic, you can assume it contains GMO ingredients if it contains sugar from sugar beet, soy, or corn, or any of their derivatives.

If you buy processed food, opt for products bearing the USDA 100% Organic label, as organics do not permit GMOs. You can also print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. Alternatively, download their free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications. For more in-depth information, I highly recommend reading the following two books, authored by Jeffrey Smith, the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology:

• Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating
• Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.

For timely updates, join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter. Please, do your homework. Together, we have the power to stop the chemical technology industry from destroying our food supply, the future of our children, and the earth as a whole. All we need is about five percent of American shoppers to simply stop buying genetically engineered foods, and the food industry would have to reconsider their source of ingredients—regardless of whether the products bear an actual GMO label or not.

Related articles

• GMO-Science Takes a Blow as Studies Are Retracted
• Unethical Journal Retraction Fuels Mistrust in GMO Science
• How GMO Foods Will Be Eradicated - Video
• Monsanto Pours Millions into GMO-Labeling Fight
• Turning the Tide Against Monsanto
• How Pesticide Companies Silence Scientific Dissent

Is Monsanto Using 4-H to Brainwash Your Children About GMOs?

4-H Stamp (Photo credit: Hacktweeters)

By Dr. Mercola

Monsanto is boasting its partnership with 4-H programs by giving a shout-out to “National 4-H Week.”1

This is not the first time Monsanto has used its clever propaganda to influence our nation’s youth. The Council for Biotechnology Information widely circulated aBiotechnology Basics Activity Book for kids, a disturbing and brightly colored obvious intent to 'educate' the children.

4-H is the country’s largest youth organization with more than 6 million members in 80 countries around the world, involving children from elementary school age through high school.

The organization is extremely influential to children, impacting their intellectual and emotional development through their numerous programs and clubs. Unfortunately, Monsanto is using its partnership with 4-H as a vehicle to worm its way into your child’s mind in order to influence her developing beliefs and values.

Children are like little sponges, soaking up everything they see and hear, which makes them particularly vulnerable to being sucked in by propaganda.

And the effects could be life-long—at least they’re intended to be. Indeed you’d be hard-pressed to convince an adult, who from childhood was taught the merits of genetically engineered foods, that there’s anything wrong with such alterations of the food supply.  

If your child is involved in 4-H, it would be wise to monitor the messages she’s getting, given this organization’s  corporate sponsors and alliances.

4-H is really the perfect vehicle for Big Ag to manipulate an entire generation, using tactics not that different from the youth indoctrination strategies employed by political extremists in order to gain children’s trust and then “groom” them however they wish.

Think about it—what better way to control the future of our food system than to brainwash 6.8 million impressionable youth into believing that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe and beneficial, if not the answer to all the problems of the world?2

4-H Volunteers are Being Trained by Monsanto

The 4-H Youth Development Organization was originally set up by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to train the rural youth of America in hands-on skills like agriculture and raising animals, including the promotion of responsible animal husbandry and the cultivation of food resources in a responsible, ethical way.

The 4-H emblem, a four-leaf clover, is supposed to symbolize four actions (head, hands, heart, and health) as stated in their pledge:

“I pledge my head to clearer thinking, my heart to greater loyalty, myhands to larger service and my health to better living, for my club, my community, my country, and my world.”

However, as noble as their original vision is, it remains vulnerable to the influences of its funders. Just as the USDA and other government agencies have a carefully crafted and well established revolving door arrangement with industry, 4-H is increasingly in the grips of the corporations that fund it—specifically, the agricultural, biotech, and junk food industries.

According to its 2012 Annual Report,3 4-H’s funding comes from a long list of donors that include Monsanto, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Cargill, DuPont, United Soybean Board, Coca-Cola, and Pfizer. It doesn’t take much imagination to predict what sort of agenda 4-H would need to promote to keep its donors happy.

Pro-GMO propaganda would be easy to weave into 4-H’s program since they already occupy the role of teaching children the art of farming, and in their position of authority, children would never question it. Monsanto is now also training tens of thousands of 4-H volunteers, according to an article in 4-Traders:

“In 2007, Monsanto expanded its 4-H volunteerism support by funding state and regional development. More than 52,600 volunteers have attended Monsanto-supported forums and training events in 50 states, three US territories and four Extension regional forums.”

Monsanto Hijacks Government, Education and Science

Corporations like Monsanto are employing increasingly underhanded strategies to spread their self-serving propaganda across broader segments of society. Here are three prime examples:

• Hijacking Government Regulators: Conflicts of interest are rampant in government agencies, which have a revolving door with US federal regulatory agencies like the USDA, FDA, and EPA.
• Hijacking Higher Education: An ever-increasing percentage of funding for research at land grant universities now comes from private corporations, giving big companies a stronger foothold than ever in higher education. Corporations wield power over educational institutions by giving college leaders positions on their corporate boards, and by hiring scientists as paid consultants. As a result, academic freedom has gone out the window, conflicts of interest are rampant, and bias eclipses objectivity.
• Hijacking the Media: Organizations such as Science Media Centre and American Council on Science and Health feature scientific “experts” that are anything but independent, and have undisclosed and far-reaching affiliations with the biotech industry.

Of course, if you are a large corporation trying to control the food supply, the younger you Consider the “Biotechnology Basics Activity Book” for kids, circulated by CBI (Council for Biotechnology Information).4 Its colorful pages and friendly cartoon characters spew outright lies about the “benefits” of genetic engineering for health, environment, world hunger and the future of farming. Monsanto is one of eight biotech companies behind the release of this 16-page children’s activity book, demonstrating just how low it will stoop. CBI claims to promote science-based information but is really just a shill for the biotech industry, for the purpose of advancing the pro-GMO agenda.  Brainwashing children is a new low, even for Monsanto. They’re not satisfied with just poisoning our children’s bodies—now they’re trying to poison their minds as well. And history is quite clear about how easy it is to poison the minds of the young.

Hijacking the Minds of Our Youth

It is difficult to ignore the parallels when looking at how 4-H, the largest American youth organization, is being hijacked by big biotech corporations to fulfill an agenda—the worldwide takeover by GMOs. But when you consider that Monsanto has no problem with poisoning our children, destroying farmers, polluting oceans, and ruining the earth’s topsoil, it seems there is no limit to their avarice.

If the Nazi analogy seems far-fetched, consider that the German people would have felt the same way before they realized what was happening to them. These manipulations can be masterful and insidious. The best way to protect your child from corporate brainwashing is with YOUR watchful eye.

If corporations like Monsanto are successful in hijacking the minds of our youth, they will essentially be in control the decisions and behavior of the next generation—and there is nothing to stop them until a great deal of damage is done to you, your children and grandchildren, and our planet. This is why it is so critical for you to be involved in your children’s activities and take an active role in their education. Do not fall into the trap of assuming that, just because they are involved with a “reputable” organization like 4-H, that they are getting unbiased and truthful information.

Vote with Your Pocketbook, Every Day

The food companies on the left of this graphic spent tens of millions of dollars in the last two labeling campaigns—in California and Washington State - to prevent you from knowing what’s in your food. You can even the score by switching to the brands on the right; all of whom stood behind the I-522 Right to Know campaign. Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference.

I encourage you to continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and to share what you’ve learned with family and friends. Remember, unless a food is certified organic, you can assume it contains GMO ingredients if it contains sugar from sugar beets, soy, or corn, or any of their derivatives.

If you buy processed food, opt for products bearing the USDA 100% Organic label, as certified organics do not permit GMO’s. You can also print out and use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for Responsible Technology. Share it with your friends and family, and post it to your social networks. Alternatively, download their free iPhone application, available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications. For more in-depth information, I highly recommend reading the following two books, authored by Jeffrey Smith, the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology:

• Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating
• Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.

For timely updates, join the Non-GMO Project on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.

Please, do your homework. Together, we have the power to stop the biotech industry from destroying our food supply, the future of our children, and the earth as a whole. All we need is about five percent of American shoppers to simply stop buying genetically engineered foods, and the food industry would have to reconsider their source of ingredients—regardless of whether the products bear an actual GMO label or not.

Related articles

• Is Monsanto Using 4-H to Brainwash Your Children About GMOs?
• Unethical Journal Retraction Fuels Mistrust in GMO Science
• The Environmental Costs of Corn-Based Ethanol
• Chemicals in Your Drinking Water That Could Be Wrecking Your Health
• The Forces behind America's Economic Destruction
• Inside Look at Sustainable Farming in America

Turning the Tide Against Monsanto

A photo of a genetically-engineered glowing tobacco plant taken with the autoluminograph method (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Dr. Mercola

Between October 18 and November 5 the next big GMO-labeling vote will take place in the United States; this time in Washington State, where citizens will cast their votes for the people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act."

Initiative 522 (I-522) will require seeds, raw agricultural commodities, and processed foods to be labeled if they’re produced using genetic engineering.1

The success of this ballot initiative is dependent on public donations, and we’re up against industry giants with very deep pockets, so please, help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Fund (OCF) today.

 The video above features Ronnie Cummins, the national director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and the Organic Consumers Fund—one of our allies in the movement to build a sustainable and healthy system of food and farming in the United States.

Part of this food movement is the Millions Against Monsanto campaign, and campaigns pushing for labeling of genetically engineered foods across the US.

The first March Against Monsanto, which took place in May, 2013 was really an extraordinary event that did not get the media attention it deserved. Some two million people in 450 cities and 50 countries took to the streets with the same message—that genetic engineering and Monsanto are out of control, and we need labeling and safety testing.

According to Cummins:

“We need to get these crops off the market or marginalized. That’s what worries Monsanto and the rest of the food industry. Last November, they came close to a disaster when the California ballot initiative Proposition 37 nearly passed. We got 48.5 percent of the vote. They beat us by one and a half percentage points. Well, Monsanto and their allies – Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, and the rest – they had to spend 50 million dollars to beat us in California.”

Why Are Chemical Companies in Charge of Our Food Supply?

For a long time, Monsanto appeared to be perched on top of the world, making enormous profits and wielding near unparalleled political clout. One of the most recent examples of their political power was the insertion of the “Monsanto Protection Act” rider into the appropriation bill, back in January, which basically eliminated the power of the federal judiciary to control genetically engineered crops. As explained by Cummins:

“Under this Monsanto rider to the appropriation bill, even if a federal court rules that a genetically engineered crop has been improperly approved—that it could harm the environment or public health, they can’t stop it. Monsanto’s chief cheerleader in the Senate, Roy Blunt from Missouri, was very proud of this rider, and it went through.

But in a sign of change, millions of people complained, emailed and called Congress, and caused the backers of the bill to back off and say that, ‘Well, it’ll expire on September 30 and then it won’t be part of the Farm Bill or continuing appropriations.’”

Thankfully, the rider, which was renewed by the House of Representatives, was finally voted down by the Senate, thanks to your overwhelming support and affirmative action. As of September 30, the “Monsanto Protection Act” expired. It just goes to show how critical it is that we unite and address these issues together. It’s the only way we will make positive change.

It’s worth remembering though that Monsanto is not alone in recklessly pushing genetically engineered (GE) crops and foods. The following five multi-national chemical companies are also major players:

• DuPont
• Dow
• Bayer
• Syngenta
• BASF

All of these chemical companies have tried to reposition themselves as “life science” companies, but, as Cummins points out, “they’re still the same old companies whose bottom line depends on selling as many toxic herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides as possible.” Disturbingly, these chemical companies have also bought out most of the seed industry, worldwide, making it extremely difficult for farmers to buy non-GE seeds.

Monsanto’s Grip Slips as Americans Become Better Informed

While the overall picture looks bleak, a number of things have happened in the last 12 months that have shaken Monsanto’s image of invincibility. For example:

• A growing epidemic of genetically engineered (GE) super weeds and super pests is spreading across US farm fields. As reported by Cummins, 49 percent of American farmers are now battling Roundup resistant weeds in their corn and soy fields. In an effort to get rid of them, they’re resorting to ever-increasing amounts of Roundup herbicide, Monsanto’s flagship chemical weed killer, and/or other even more toxic herbicides such as Agent Orange 2,4-D or Dicamba. If you look at the statistics over the last decade, there are actually more herbicides than ever being used. As a result, the industry’s promise that GE crops would allow for fewer pesticides to be used has taken on a distinctively hollow ring.
• Also, part of the original rationale for using GE crops was that they could be sprayed with less toxic herbicides, such asRoundup—which was touted as harmless and biodegradable. Now, mounting research reveals that Roundup may actually be one of the most toxic chemicals ever to enter our food supply! Some scientists, like Dr. Don Huber, believe it may be even more toxic than DDT.
• Genetically engineered Bt seeds are also soaked in toxic fungicides called neonicotinoids, which have now been linked to the mass die-off of bees in the US and around the world. This in and of itself threatens about 70 percent of the US food supply (fruits, vegetables, berries and nuts that rely on bees for pollination) and the rapid demise of these pollinators has gained worldwide attention.
• Mounting research published in peer-reviewed journals reveals a wide variety of health hazards associated with consuming genetically engineered foods and the chemicals that accompany these crops.
• The environmental impact of GE crops and associated agricultural chemicals, like Roundup, is also coming into clearer focus as research reveals how they destroy soil microbes and inhibit the fertility of the soil.

Recent Events Highlight Necessity for GMO Labeling

In 2013, we’ve seen efforts to pass genetically engineered food labeling laws in 30 states, and the state legislatures in Connecticut and Maine have passed such laws. The next major event is November 5. The citizens’ ballot initiative in Washington State is very similar to the law that was proposed in California last year. Polls and focus groups indicate this ballot initiative is indeed going to win. A number of recent events have also heightened the public’s awareness of the necessity for GMO labeling, not to mention the need to implement the precautionary principle. For example:

• The federal government is considering approving the most controversial genetically engineered product since bovine growth hormone in 1994, namely genetically engineered salmon. Even FDA scientists are warning that the GE salmon created by Aquabounty appears to be allergenic to humans. Marine biologists and fishing communities are also pointing out that once these genetically engineered salmon escape into the wild, which they will, they will decimate the wild salmon population.
• Industry is also trying to get approval for a GE apple, which is anathema to Washington State’s apple producers. This apple is genetically engineered to not turn brown once sliced. Here too, scientists are warning that the genetic manipulation involved in producing this non-browning apple is unpredictable and possibly quite hazardous to human health.
• Unapproved genetically engineered wheat varieties, created by Monsanto, were recently discovered in the Northwest, causing overseas markets to temporarily cancel imports of American-grown wheat. This naturally caught the attention of wheat growers in Washington State as well.

Who Is Funding the Anti-Labeling Campaign?

Monsanto has so far donated $4.8 million to the No on 522 campaign. Dupont has kicked in another $3.4 million,2 and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) $2.2 million. Curiously absent from any list of donors are the big spenders from last year’s No on Prop 37 campaign. However, as explained by Cummins, this cannot be taken as a good sign:

“I think we’re going to win on November 5th, and industry sees that, too. That’s the reason none of the Big Food companies have been willing to donate money to defeat I-522 in Washington State, or at least they haven’t been willing to publicly donate money.

The main donations so far against labeling in Washington State, which is about two million dollars, have come disguised as a donation from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). The Grocery Manufacturers Association is basically a trade association of 300 large corporations – food and manufacturing corporations – and supermarket chains.

No one wants to be identified with being against mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, so they’re trying to conceal their donations by giving them to the GMA, and then the GMA launders the money for them. But that’s not going to work. It’s going to be coming out more and more: Who is providing the money to try to keep consumers in the dark about labeling?”

New Hurdles to Be Faced as Big Biotech Fights to Maintain Control

Recent polls show that 64-66 percent of likely voters in Washington State strongly support GMO labeling, which puts further pressure on companies who’d rather not disclose such ingredients. So what is Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association apt to do, knowing that the Washington State ballot initiative is likely going to pass on November 5th?

According to Cummins, they’re presently hard at work on a number of fronts. For example, they’re trying to insert a measure into the Farm Bill—known as the King Amendment—which could make it very difficult for states to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws. They also tried and failed to keep the “Monsanto Protection Act” rider in the appropriations bill.

Worse yet, Big Biotech and the Grocery Manufacturers Association are also working on two secret trade agreements: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). You can learn more about these trade agreements on Organic Consumers Association’s web site.3 As explained by Cummins:

“These so-called free trade agreements are expansions of the highly unpopular North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and World Trade Organization Agreements (WTO) that has been described as NAFTA or WTO on steroids. Basically, these are secret trade agreements that are being worked on now by representatives of 600 large corporations that are designed to increase the power of corporations to stop nations, states, and municipalities from passing pro-consumer, pro-natural health, or pro-environmental laws.

Believe it or not, these negotiations are being conducted in secret, where not even the US Congress is allowed to look at what’s being discussed or what’s being proposed. The bottom line is that the reason why Monsanto, the biotech industry, and the Big Food corporations are fully in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is that corporations under these new trade rules will be able to force countries to lower their standards, their safety standards, labeling requirements, labor standards, and so on and so forth... People who have looked at them, like Alan Grayson from the US Congress, have said, ‘This is worse than you could even imagine.’”

Let’s Not Allow for Half-Measures...

On July 10, the Grocery Manufacturers of America held a closed-door meeting in Washington DC, to which 300 large food and chemical companies had been invited. According to Cummins, one of the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s suggestions for addressing the impending crisis of GMO labeling is to push for a labeling law via the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This law, of course, would be likely be merely voluntary, or else full of loopholes and exemptions, such as allowing products that contain five percent or less genetically engineered ingredients to avoid labeling. In short, we can expect them to use every trick in the book to defeat us.

“But the great thing is, I think, we have now built a coalition that understands food, farming, things like genetic engineering, and things like natural health,” Cummins says. “There are more people who understand these issues now than ever before: millions of readers of Mercola.com, we have a million people in our Organic Consumers’ Association network across the country, and we have millions of people who are members of our allies’ networks. We may not control the mass media like big corporate entities do, but we do have a lot of influence, dominant influence, on the Internet and the social media, and the message is getting out.

We can win this battle, at least stage one of this battle, but it’s going to take financial contributions. It’s going to take millions of hours literally of volunteer labor on the part of people – educating their friends and families and getting involved in activities in their local communities. It’s going to involve building a broader and broader coalition.

One of the very exciting things about Prop 37 in California last year was it was the first time in modern history that you saw the organic community and the natural health community working together. It’s the first time I’ve ever seen libertarians, liberals, radicals, and conservatives work together. I think what we realized now is that issues like food and farming, natural health, and the deterioration our environment and climate, these are not partisan issues.”

Why GE Cotton Is a Major Health Hazard

About 20 percent of genetically engineered (GE) crops are used in processed food. The remaining 80 percent of GE crops go into (non-organic) animal feed, cotton, biofuels, cosmetics, and nutritional supplements. This is one of the reasons why I recommend eating organically-raised, grass-fed or pastured meats only and shopping for certified organic clothing and other consumer products whenever possible. A major GMO crop that we need to think more about is genetically engineered cotton. More than 90 percent of the cotton grown in the US is so-called Bt-cotton—genetically engineered to contain its own pesticide, Bt. Sixty percent of what you harvest from a cotton field by weight is the cotton seed, which not only ends up in some processed foods in the form of cottonseed oil, but also in animal feed.  There are a couple of health hazards at play when it comes to genetically engineered Bt cotton:

• Bt cotton is engineered to produce its own insecticide inside the plant itself, hence it cannot be washed off—it’s an integral part of the cellular composition of the plant—and its seeds. Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claimed the Bt toxin would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and not have any impact on humans eating Bt crops, such as Bt corn. However, in 2011, researcher discovered Bt-toxin in the blood of pregnant women and their babies, as well as in non-pregnant women, completely shattering the industry’s claims.
• The US government, and many other nations, permits cotton to be sprayed with some of the most toxic herbicides on the market, including chemicals not permitted on other crops. The rationale is that cotton is not a food crop, so it “doesn’t matter.” But 60 percent of the cotton harvest DOES go into the food chain! The average American dairy cow, raised in a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) consumes six to eight pounds of cottonseed every day, at least in the Northern climates, as a source of protein. When a cow eats these cotton seeds, these toxins are accumulated in its fatty tissues and milk.

As Cummins suggests, we have to start thinking in larger terms. The hazards of GMOs go far beyond the health ramifications of just eating a particular GMO grain. As he says:

“You go to the clothing store... and you see something labeled ‘All cotton.’ Well, I mean, it should say, ‘All genetically engineered cotton sprayed with ungodly amounts of pesticides whose waste product is in the food you’re eating (if you’re not eating organic food. Organic food, as you know, bans the use of genetically engineered inputs or ingredients and synthetic herbicides and pesticides.) We need to care about what we wear. We need to start thinking. We got millions of us now. When we pull out our wallet at the grocery store, we’re thinking about what we’re buying. Let’s spread that to clothing.’”

Opt for REAL Food

Why do Americans continue to buy 90-95 percent of the meat and animal products from factory farms, where animals are raised in wholly unnatural ways and on completely unnatural diets? Lack of truthful information is likely part of the equation. People just don’t know how their food is produced. “Meat is meat, right?” most assume. But there is actually very little similarity between CAFO beef, meat and dairy and grass-fed beef, meat and dairy.

CAFO beef and dairy comes from animals fed genetically engineered grains and often cotton seed, both of which are heavily contaminated with potent toxins. They’re also raised in crowded, prison-like conditions where they’re drugged with antibiotics and hormones to keep them relatively free from disease and to force them to grow faster. The end result is a meat product that is inevitably not going to be healthful for human consumption...

As Cummins says:

“Grass-fed meat, dairy, and eggs are the way to go. Organic production is the way to go... We need to know what we’re eating. We need to live in a country where we believe that if you give people information, objective information, if you give them a choice, they will do the right thing. This idea that Americans will always go for the cheaper food – that’s the reason why we have this factory farm system and this GMO system, why we have this obesity and heart disease epidemic, and why we spend twice as much money on so-called healthcare as any other industrial nation – it’s not true.

... I’m very happy to say that the Organic Consumers Fund, which is the lobbying ally of Organic Consumers Association, and Mercola are two of the major donors to the Yes on 522 so far. We’re well on track to raise enough money to have a full month or six weeks of TV and radio ads, so that we’re not going to be outspent on the advertising front in Washington. Spending one dollar on TV or radio ads in Washington is the equivalent of spending eight dollars in California. We don’t need to raise quite as much money as we raised in California.

Of course, it’s extremely important that the readers of Mercola.com and our nationwide network of organic consumers make financial contributions. The reason we were able to basically put in two and a half million dollars into the California effort last year was that 40,000 people made small contributions of 50 dollars or more. If you go to OrganicConsumers.org or Mercola.com, you’ll see that you can make a donation to the Organic Consumers Fund that will go into this decisive battle in Washington.”

Join Us in Your Right to Know by Getting GMOs Labeled!

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. In the past few weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling bills, and 20 other states have pending legislation to label genetically engineered foods. So, now is the time to put the pedal to the metal and get labeling across the country—something 64 other countries already have.

I hope you will join us in this effort.

The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act," will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. Please help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to build momentum for GMO labeling in other states by making a donation to the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).

 Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn't have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let's not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can.

• No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
• Sign up to learn more about how you can get involved by visiting Yeson522.com!
• For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
• Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

Related articles

• Ronnie Cummins on Turning the Tide Against Monsanto
• Monsanto Pours Millions into GMO-Labeling Fight
• Can Adding Fluoride to Milk Help Improve Children's Dental Health?
• Dangers to Infants You Need to Be Aware of
• How GMO Foods Will Be Eradicated - Video
• Attacks on Health Reporters and Their Readers Are Escalating